Is Religion causing Animal Cruelty?

Post Reply New Topic

Sometimes this is the case. Some people who follow a certain a way of life believe that "they have every right to control the world because some book or whatever god they believed in told them to."

However, I don't believe it's religion that causes problems such as animal cruelty, it's what people do with the religion, since religion was indeed created by people.

I don't know if religion is the cause of animal cruelty, it seems the real issue is some people not having an understanding of what a being is, and so they lack compassion to understand or comprehend their actions. Religion is basically a set of rules to live by, not that I am a religious person, I am agnostic, but I know that any society needs rules. People who have never had rules to live by, ie: "Bad parenting, or just ignorant", seem to think harming is fun, or who knows what is going on in their heads. Now when its done for killing animals for food, religion has a set of rules that are there to prevent harm, a hygiene rule, but they also include that the animal be killed quickly and as painlessly as possible, an animal that feels pain or is to stressed is going to be unhealthy.
I am not advocating meat eaters or vegetarians, each has their advantages and disadvantages.

In the bible god likes Able's gift (a slaughterd animal) more than Kain's gift. I think that is cruel. Why would god want us to kill one of his creations for him? I agree that there is some animal cruelty in religion, though religion doesn't necessarily base their beliefs on hurting living things.

I love animals and wish they could talk; maybe we would slaughter them less. Has anyone ever read Wicked (The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West)?

I believe that ancient religions like the egyptians and babylonians sacrificed animals as part of their rituals before and while Judaism existed, I don't think many people considered to be cruel at the time like it is now considered by lots.

I want to point out that some of the clothes we could be wearing come from animals, some might be wearing them and eating meat while saying religion is cruel to animals.

The vast majority of animal cruelty in the modern world is driven by 2 main things.

1. Science
2. Economics

The first is entirely justified. There's simply no other way to test potentially toxic chemicals since no one in their right mind would sign up for a test which was determining the potency of a recently discovered poison.

The second issue is typically caused by factory farms because we humans really like chicken. This can't be changed through any practical means.

I have heard of many atheists that use cold, rational theories to justify atrocities. You see, religion or no, amoral people will perform whatever crimes they deem neccessary.

"One death is a tragedy, one million deaths are a statistic."

There are good and bad religions; good and bad ideologies.

A religious person can use their proclaimed superiority as a human being, just as an atheist will proclaim the same, in order to justify performing whatever cruelties they will. It depends on the theory and on the person's character. The two are no different in that sense!
So, don't go tarring religion with the same brush. For the record, I am agnostic, but I believe that people should have the right to believe freely. And I still believe that humans are superior to animals, and if they are tasty, a threat, or if it is neccessary to experiment upon them, then it is justified. But cosmetic testing is not.

Some religions have certainly contributed to animal cruelty by denying any commonality between humans and animals.

On the other hand, many scientists is also partly to blame, for stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that animals are no more "meat machines" than humans are. If humans have consciousness and emotions, then animals must have them on some level too, because we are just another species of animal. Yet because those things are subjective, and animals lack complex language with which to report subjective states, science ignores them. Instead, we're supposed to reduce everything to instincts and behaviours, and any attempts to show that animal behaviours are "emotional" are dismissed as assumptions of anthropomorphism.

Human actions can also be reduced to mere behaviours and instincts, but that doesn't make our subjective experience any less real. It all reeks of hypocrisy to me.

That's the thing.

However, does it make abusing animals any less likely if you don't believe in anything? Some religions even condemn harming any animals.

Certain animals are as intelligent as below-average intelligence humans, even. Those animals should be treated with the utmost care. However, it is hard to justify putting animals above humans. It's only natural and rational to put your own species first, in most cases. Indeed, some animals, such as cats and monkeys, etc, have emotions and a certain intellect which, while not average human level sentience, definitely puts them at the higher echelons of mental development. And not even that exempts them from medical experimentation, all to a good cause.

For the animals which we consume, well, one purpose of tasty animals is to be eaten. It's not cruel so long as their suffering is brief.

Animals don't do cruelty. Humans do cruelty, and cruelty to animals isn't really about religion. It's about cruelty! Many the budding psychopath has tortured and killed animals purely for entertainment purposes.

Are we to assume that atheists are paragons of kindness to animals? Or to anyone, for that matter? Religious affilliation is no guarantee of morality.

Within Christianity, Adam & Eve were instructed by God to be stewards of the Earth. Yes, God did tell Adam that he was to be lord over all the animals. The Garden was supposed to be an example of how animals and human could live in perfect harmony, with love and mutual respect.

Animal cruelty and religion don't necessarily go hand-in-hand. Religion and moral rectitude often go together, but not always. There are exceptions everywhere.